In the thread On average how many board updates/sec can top Go
programs do these days? mingwu said of the way MC/UCT programs work
that he'd hardly call it intelligent.
I've thought (and argued elsewhere) that the MC/UCT approach is
fundamentally more intelligent, in the sense of working more like
Does someone have positive results
for non-symetrical bandit-based planning, e.g.
using a bandit with more exploration for the opponent
than for oneself.
Best regards.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
The question is Why do you do it?
a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
The question is Why do you do it?
a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Boon
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:11 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] How to get more participation in 19x19
CGOS?
As suggested by David Fotland I made a simple
I agree with what you say about UCT/MC and I think I made a similar post
many months ago. Essentially I said, just as you, that UCT is closer
to what humans do, it works out the particulars of the position.
I've always thought it odd that the approach advocated by many is based
on static
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Harri Salakoski wrote:
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for
black that
are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can
lose a lot
of points. Connections through false eyes are one example.
Yep agree that, knowing that
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:59PM +0100, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
There are no advantages to allowing suicide, it is simply expensive for me
in terms of speed to forbid it in playouts. If this is not the case for
your board structure then you will probably want to forbid suicide.
I do not
We have designed a new CGOS engine client that has more features and
should be more convenient to use.
Here are the primary new features:
1. You can run multiple engines if you choose.
2. You can specify server and port.
3. Works with configuration file - so you have multiple configs
On 16-jan-08, at 11:54, Christoph Birk wrote:
I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide.
If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be
played in the
random games you are not sampling the true status of the board.
I think most people take a much too dogmatic point of
Mark Boon wrote:
On 16-jan-08, at 11:54, Christoph Birk wrote:
I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide.
If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be played
in the
random games you are not sampling the true status of the board.
I think most people take a much
David Doshay wrote:
There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..
1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.
2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
under rules that allow
We can use math to shed some light on the topic:
* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
as Don has previously concluded.
* Then we have the following table of approximate
costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
cost - lost ELO
On 16-jan-08, at 17:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can use math to shed some light on the topic:
* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
as Don has previously concluded.
* Then we have the following table of approximate
costs, which
Don,
Although I'm not interested in this feature at this point in time I
applaud the effort you put into this server.
Just some information with regards to Mac clients: it turns out Macs
come with a tcl runtime out of the box. So you should point Mac users
simply to the cgos3.tcl file
I think you are off on the relative importance of superko and suicide
and it seems that your values are rather arbitrary - just made up.
First of all, we are only talking about detection in the play-outs, not
in the tree search portion.
In the play-outs, it is very important to avoid moves
Mark,
Don did say that doubling the speed of a machine is
100 ELO. See the thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg05358.html
I believe that beating someone 2:1 is 100 ELO.
So, if ignoring suicide is at most 1 ELO, then it doesn't matter.
Michael Wing
P.S. I should
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the play-outs.
Hmm... It would speed things up, though. And if you made
Don,
I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
then the driver will use the next best move instead.
(Repeat as necessary) So it will not
Mark,
I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a
doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and the
Now that is thinking outside the box :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don,
I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
then the driver will use the next best move instead.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I have often wondered if UCT and Monte Carlo play-outs would have even
been discovered a few years ago.It could very well be that this
technology HAD to wait for today. Mogo and CrazyStone would not be
impressive on a 386.
I heard about
The newest cgos engine client is now available with platform specific
versions also available. You can get it as a tclkit, pure tcl
script, or platform specific binary.
A couple of bugs have already been fixed - so you should use this
version instead of the last one I advertised.
maybe this doesn't sound right to everyone,
but i thought that suicide and filling one-point
eyes were both things that could be highly
useful in many corner positions where you either
want to create a nakade (fill the eye), or threaten
one (with suicide).
s.
- Original Message
From:
I inadvertently introduced a bug in the new client program, so if you
have downloaded it recently you probably have a buggy version.
Please grab the latest and help me test:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/index.html
- Don
___
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?
If not, then it makes sense to
Yesterday, I played a 9x9 game with Mogo, and a seki developed in the corner.
Mogo tried to capture my stones;
I gleefully aided Mogo in this assisted suicide by creating a square four
shape, which Mogo captured.
Subsequent plays suggested that Mogo believed its group to be alive. When all
terry mcintyre wrote:
That key play might even have been discouraged by some pattern.
MoGo probably does not allow self-ataris. If you do not allow self-atari
you cannot see such a shape is dead.
--
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?
Yes,
On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
Can anyone come with concrete examples?
Sure, for example with the following shape
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye
would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
Can anyone come with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heikki Levanto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
Don Dailey wrote:
Mark,
I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a
doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus
I used 7.5 for that study.You are probably looking at the study
where I use 7x7 in which case the program was too strong to see a good
curve - 8.5 komi is won almost always by black, 9.5 by white if I
remember correctly with 7x7.
Let me see if I can actually find the old graph I created - the
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
Don Dailey wrote:
I found the graph, but I can't find the data and the details, although
it will be on one of the postings. I think this was at least a year
ago, perhaps 2.
Here is what I remember:
I played 11
36 matches
Mail list logo
